NWO/Illuminati US politics

Who should be POTUS?

  • Total voters
    41

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bostonian said:
Oh bullshit, what does it matter if it's at the start or end of the process it's still trying to fu** with the results.

You couldn't give a crap about a fair democratic process, it's why you're shilling so hard for the Democrats.
Click to expand...
lol. Quote a single post of mine even mildly enthusiastic about the Democrats.

The irony of accusing someone of not giving a crap about the democratic process while putting the Democrats and GOP at the same level in this area. Fookn hilarious.

Bostonian said:
The difference is the Democrats get given far bigger passes for their s**t lordery than the Republicans do. Like you're trying to do now.
Click to expand...
Coz their s**t lordery is orders of magnitude less than the GOPs, in both scale and frequency. Really, its not complicated.

And you don't reckon the GOP get passes? lol. Trump and his enablers in the GOP should never be let within cooee of an election ever again.
 
Last edited:
EasternTiger said:
Looks like the Republicans are fixin for a good ol fashioned peach minting after the midterms.

nypost.com

Hunter Biden grand jury witness was asked who is the ‘big guy’ in Chinese deal

A witness who testified before the Hunter Biden grand jury was asked to identify the “big guy” in the first son’s planned deal with a Chinese energy conglomerate — as calls …
nypost.com nypost.com
Click to expand...
Thank christ - we might finally get some clarification on why the big guy wasn't allowed to do business and make income while not in office.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

BlueE said:
How is money laundering worth billions, doing business?

Hunter was a bag man for the Biden crime family.
Click to expand...
Is that the charge? News to me, its only ever been "10 for the big guy" previously, as if the mere fact Biden was trying to make money in China after office was some indictable offence.

Can't wait for it all to be spelled out if thats the case, about time some of the establishment got pulled up.
 
NicNat2TimKelly said:
Well, you are wrong. It wasn't 15 out of 18 it was 11 out of 18. You struggle with everything.
Click to expand...

Haha, another deliberate misstatement of the facts. It's simple to check your table and confirm that it was 15.

Look, I get that you're at the point where you need to save face now, because you've been made to look very silly in the recent exchanges due to your lack of ability to process basic information. But lying to try to save face suggests that you've finally realised you were wrong, but lack the courage to admit it.
 
60 Yards Out said:
If you have the intellectual capacity to distinguish between levels of malfeasance but you choose to stop analysing at “Both sides do it” you are just being lazy; or perhaps you have a preference for one side that trumps the inclination to reason.
Click to expand...

Or perhaps the Democrats actually having another political party struck from ballots is worse than challenging results.

One succeeded and the other didn't.

So only one had a real world impact.
 
Bostonian said:
Or perhaps the Democrats actually having another political party struck from ballots is worse than challenging results.

One succeeded and the other didn't.

So only one had a real world impact.
Click to expand...
"Challenging results" :tearsofjoy:

Like they just made an orderly challenge, accepted the umpires call, shook hands and went home :tearsofjoy:

How does asking state reps to 'find' votes and pressuring the VP to ignore the constitution and not certify fit in with this orderly challenge, would you say? Ah it didn't work though, so all good play on, nothing to worry about. You might wanna keep an eye on how elections in the US go over the next decade if you're concerned about "real world impact".

Also interested to hear how limiting options on a ballot is worse than concerted historic and ongoing efforts to not allow huge swathes of people to even vote in the first place :drunk:
 
bourbons said:
"Challenging results" :tearsofjoy:

Like they just made an orderly challenge, accepted the umpires call, shook hands and went home :tearsofjoy:

How does asking state reps to 'find' votes and pressuring the VP to ignore the constitution and not certify fit in with this orderly challenge, would you say? Ah it didn't work though, so all good play on, nothing to worry about. You might wanna keep an eye on how elections in the US go over the next decade if you're concerned about "real world impact".

Also interested to hear how limiting options on a ballot is worse than concerted historic and ongoing efforts to not allow huge swathes of people to even vote in the first place :drunk:
Click to expand...

Last time I check the Democrats are in power and that creepy child sniffer and his halfwit offsider were in charge of the US.

Are you talking about requiring ID to vote?

I remember some Democrat pond scum saying how racist that was then you see polls that show black people support it.

You mean that kind of voter suppression?
 
Bostonian said:
Last time I check the Democrats are in power and that creepy child sniffer and his halfwit offsider were in charge of the US.

Are you talking about requiring ID to vote?

I remember some Democrat pond scum saying how racist that was then you see polls that show black people support it.

You mean that kind of voter suppression?
Click to expand...
Was more talking about this kind of stuff over a long period historically;

www.rollingstone.com

The GOP War on Voting

In a campaign supported by the Koch brothers, Republicans are working to prevent millions of Democrats from voting next year
www.rollingstone.com www.rollingstone.com
newrepublic.com

The GOP’s Sneakiest Voter Suppression Tactic

Polling places have been quietly shuttered across the country, in a transparent bid to make it tougher for minorities and the poor to vote.
newrepublic.com newrepublic.com
slate.com

How Republicans Rationalize Voter Suppression

Since 2011, Republican lawmakers in swing states have pushed hard for new restrictions on voting, from voter identification to new rules on early...
slate.com slate.com
www.brennancenter.org

This Is the Worst Voter Suppression We’ve Seen in the Modern Era

Trump deserves blame, but there’s plenty to go around.
www.brennancenter.org www.brennancenter.org
theintercept.com

Memos Reveal Scope, Racial Animus of GOP Gerrymandering Nationwide

Documents outline plans by top GOP strategists to exploit the creation of “majority-minority” seats and ensure redistricting dominance.
theintercept.com theintercept.com
www.wbur.org

'Gerrymandering On Steroids': How Republicans Stacked The Nation's Statehouses

Republicans today have a majority in nearly two-thirds of the country's state legislative chambers, thanks to a party plan dubbed REDMAP.
www.wbur.org www.wbur.org
www.nbcnews.com

N. Carolina judges slam GOP gerrymandering in stinging ruling, reject district maps

The ruling found state legislative boundaries were so partisan they violated the state constitution.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com

But yes, also more contemporary measures currently being undertaken by the GOP at state level. Not the ID stuff particularly, more the whole raft of other limitations they're trying to get through. This article gives a good overview.

fivethirtyeight.com

How The Republican Push To Restrict Voting Could Affect Our Elections

In the aftermath of the 2020 election, Republican lawmakers have pushed new voting restrictions in nearly every state. From making it harder to cast ballots ear…
fivethirtyeight.com fivethirtyeight.com

So, how does asking state reps to 'find' votes and pressuring the VP to ignore the constitution and not certify fit in with the orderly challenge you mentioned earlier?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

LuvtheKangas said:
No, you're lying again. It's a simple fact and easy to prove. Check it yourself, you'll find 15 of 18 "wins" launched before 3 November 2020. To assist, I'm providing the link that is proof:

Click to expand...

You really are a peanut. Why are you posting the link that I hecking provided? You can't count, it's 11. Something else you probably haven't noticed is the list has been updated since I first provided it. Trump et al wins are 22 now not 18 and there are still 9 cases ongoing.
 
Last edited:
NicNat2TimKelly said:
You really are a peanut. Why are you posting the link that I f*n provided FFS?? You can't count it's 11.
Click to expand...

LOL, you're relying on no-one else checking, aren't you? Pretending you're standing firm because you can't back down now. Hoping everyone else gets so annoyed with this pathetic little exchange between us that it's shut down and you escape proof of you idiocy.

I posted your link on purpose (d'uh) to remind you that even using your source, you have lied about the number. Look at it again, you fool. There are only 3 Trump wins in cases launched after 3 November.

PS - even if 11 was the correct number (it's not), that's still more than half of the 18 that you kept jerking off about, so your claim of "way less than half" is still wrong. As usual, you lack the capacity to process simple facts.
 
LuvtheKangas said:
There are only 3 Trump wins in cases launched after 3 November.
Click to expand...

So now I can see where your error lies. Your original claim was that most cases were lodged before 3/11. Now it seems you've narrowed the focus more because you are ignoring cases lodged on election day. So your original claim of "before 3/11" now becomes "before 4/11". What a peanut.

:tearsofjoy:
 
NicNat2TimKelly said:
You really are a peanut. Why are you posting the link that I f*n provided? You can't count, it's 11. Something else you probably haven't noticed is the list has been updated since I first provided it. Trump et al wins are 22 now not 18 and there are still 9 cases ongoing.
Click to expand...

You've now included cases where Trump was the defendant (I don't expect you to understand the difference), which is not what we were discussing. Anyway, even two of those 4 "wins" were launched before 4/11.

NicNat2TimKelly said:
So now I can see where your error lies. Your original claim was that most cases were lodged before 3/11. Now it seems you've narrowed the focus more because you are ignoring cases lodged on election day. So your original claim of "before 3/11" now becomes "before 4/11". What a peanut.

:tearsofjoy:
Click to expand...

LOL, deflecting now and grasping at straws. I meant 4/11 but the difference is immaterial. Four cases out of 92 were launched 4/11 and those 4 cases lodged on election day were filed before the election was counted (i.e. overnight and into the next days), so they are also pre election cases. They don't change the numbers.

Why don't you post a table that proves your claim that only 11 of the 18 where Trump was the plaintiff were pre-election?

You won't, because you're wrong and it's truly pathetic. I know and you know it, but I assume you're hoping to pretend to others reading this that you're not pathetic. Good luck with that.
 
LuvtheKangas said:
You've now included cases where Trump was the defendant (I don't expect you to understand the difference), which is not what we were discussing. Anyway, even two of those 4 "wins" were launched before 4/11.



LOL, deflecting now and grasping at straws. I meant 4/11 but the difference is immaterial. Four cases out of 92 were launched 4/11 and those 4 cases lodged on election day were filed before the election was counted (i.e. overnight and into the next days), so they are also pre election cases. They don't change the numbers.

Why don't you post a table that proves your claim that only 11 of the 18 where Trump was the plaintiff were pre-election?

You won't, because you're wrong and it's truly pathetic. I know and you know it, but I assume you're hoping to pretend to others reading this that you're not pathetic. Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

You said 15 of the 18 wins were cases lodged before 3/11. This means you maintain only 3 were lodged after the election commenced on 3/11. This is simply wrong. I'm not going to spend all night listing them all but I'll list enough to prove your claim of 3 is incorrect.

#1 Donald J. Trump for President v. Gloria, No. A-20-824153-C (NV District Court) was lodged on 3/11/20

#2 Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Kathy Boockvar, et al., No. 602 MD 2020 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania) was lodge on 4/11/20

#3 Favorito v. Cooney, No. 2020CV343938 (GA Superior Ct, Fulton Cnty) was lodged on 23/12/20.

#4 Genetski & MI GOP v. Benson, No. 20-216-MM (Michigan Court of Claims) was lodged on 20/1/21.

This already proves your claim of 3 is incorrect but I'll give you another for good measure.

#5 VoterGA v. Gwinnett Cty Bd of Elections, No. 20-A-08626-2 (Superior Ct, Gwinnett) was lodged on 22/3/21.

This is getting boring BTW. Time for a meme or two to lighten the mood.

ezgif.com-gif-maker (68).jpg

ezgif.com-gif-maker (69).jpg
 
Last edited:
NicNat2TimKelly said:
You said 15 of the 18 wins were cases lodged before 3/11. This means you maintain only 3 were lodged after the election commenced on 3/11. This is simply wrong. I'm not going to spend all night listing them all but I'll list enough to prove your claim of 3 is incorrect.

#1 Donald J. Trump for President v. Gloria, No. A-20-824153-C (NV District Court) was lodged on 3/11/20

#2 Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Kathy Boockvar, et al., No. 602 MD 2020 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania) was lodge on 4/11/20

#3 Favorito v. Cooney, No. 2020CV343938 (GA Superior Ct, Fulton Cnty) was lodged on 23/12/20.

#4 Genetski & MI GOP v. Benson, No. 20-216-MM (Michigan Court of Claims) was lodged on 20/1/21.

This already proves your claim of 3 is incorrect but I'll give you another for good measure.

#5 VoterGA v. Gwinnett Cty Bd of Elections, No. 20-A-08626-2 (Superior Ct, Gwinnett) was lodged on 22/3/21.

This is getting boring BTW. Time for a meme or two to lighten the mood.

View attachment 1370962

View attachment 1370964
Click to expand...
👍
Where’s the 14,000 hours of CCTV they keep refusing to release?
 
NicNat2TimKelly said:
You really are a peanut. Why are you posting the link that I f*n provided? You can't count, it's 11. Something else you probably haven't noticed is the list has been updated since I first provided it. Trump et al wins are 22 now not 18 and there are still 9 cases ongoing.
Click to expand...

So Trump continues to be a loser - that’s the bottom line.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top